We all understand that it is Karl Roves mission to promote the Republican Party. It was the mission of Bill Buckley to promote the conservative cause. There should be no confusion between the two.  Neal B. Freeman

Ted Cruz has done more than concentrate the nations attention on the train wreck that is Obamacare.

Cruz has surfaced a longstanding problem with the Republican Party and, disturbingly, various conservative quarters as well.

Cruz has also effectively extended what is known as The Buckley Rule from a focus on candidates to a focus on issues. And in doing so is calling attention to the divide between Republican Party apparatchiks whose only goal is to win elections for the sake of winning elections  principles be damned  and those who believe not just that elections should be won but won for a reason.

We dont mean to pick on any conservative in particular here. There has been a lot of back and forth involving names and publications including Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, National Review, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Brit Hume, and Charles Krauthammer. As Senator Cruz himself has said repeatedly, theres nothing personal here.

But the latest rant from ex-McCain campaign manager Steve Schmidt, the man who believes politics is all about winning yet whose moderate obsession managed to give Obama the presidency, illustrates the problem of first we have to win an election exactly. We cite it here only because of its succinctness in stating a sentiment that is, in fact, widespread in Washington GOP circles.

It provides a chance to discuss what might be called the Cruz Extension of the Buckley Rule.

Outstanding article. I particularly enjoyed the inclusion and link to the history-correcting article by Neal Freeman to accurately define the “Buckley Rule” which is quite opposed to the GOPe ‘Rove rule’.

The way you bring real change to Washington is to change the views of the country. Simply winning an election and then setting about consensus-building is exactly what has gotten the Republican Party into so much electoral trouble. Not to mention gotten the country in so much financial trouble.

This is the whole problem with the GOP! winning the election, and then maintaining the status quo (no matter how leftward the rats have pushed it), is exactly the governing policy of the party. That has to stop!!! And the only man who I think has a chance of doing so is the Honorable Senator from Texas.

Cruz has got me excited about politics again because he has injected me with a small dose of optimism about what may still be possible in the country. God bless Ted Cruz!

Very poorly written: “ Cruz has surfaced a longstanding problem with the Republican Party...”
A thing, like a problem or issue can surface, but you can’t surface something. It surfaces, you can’t surface it.

“Cruz has got me excited about politics again because he has injected me with a small dose of optimism about what may still be possible in the country.”

And that fervor you feel inside is exactly what both the republicans and the democrats have been working to tamp down on the republican side (though they love it on the democrat side, see 2008).

Did Bob Dole inspire you to march to the polls, torch and pitchfork in hand?? Did either George Bush? Did John McCain? Did Mitt Romney? Did Gerald Ford? Do you get energized after a Mitch McConnell or John Boehner speech??

On the other hand, the people marched to vote for Reagan in droves, the same with Nixon (though a moderate by today’s standards, he knew how to get the people going), and Gingrich, in both the 90’s and last year when he, by his words and mind alone, caused people to rally to him. And Sarah Palin. And now Ted Cruz.

Uninspiring, milquetoast moderates do not inspire, plain-speaking conservatives do. And both parties fear plain-speaking conservatives because they move mountains and don’t bother listening to those who say “it can’t be done.”

From Reagan’s A Time For Choosing Speech:

“Admittedly, there’s a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to facethat their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demandthe ultimatum. And what thenwhen Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we’re retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he’s heard voices pleading for “peace at any price” or “better Red than dead,” or as one commentator put it, he’d rather “live on his knees than die on his feet.” And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don’t speak for the rest of us.

You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this beginjust in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard ‘round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn’t die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it’s a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, “There is a price we will not pay.” “There is a point beyond which they must not advance.”

Wow! Fantastic article! I was knocked off my Cruz high hope for a bit, when all that I was hearing and reading were attacks against Cruz. I’ve now read several really good articles, better than I’ve read in a long while. My Cruz high hope is back—we can do this!

Very poorly written:  Cruz has surfaced a longstanding problem with the Republican Party... A thing, like a problem or issue can surface, but you cant surface something. It surfaces, you cant surface

The author hasn't spent much time with Fowler's Modern English Usage (2nd Edition). When talking about the Buckley Rule, he used the word "conservatize". I could see Mr. Buckley wincing even in his grave over that.

These points are worth overlooking, as the content, imperfectly expressed, is spot on.

My own revision of the Buckley rule is to support the candidate most likely to effect conservative change. Again, if you want to “Cruzify” it to swap “issue” for “candidate”, I think that works for my version, too.

From the electoral standpoint, it means don’t give me the guy with the 100% ACU rating unless he can win elections and get people to go along with his agenda. (At the same time, someone who can win elections but doesn’t have conservative ideals is a bad candidate as well.)

From an issue standpoint, it’s taking on not necessarily the most dogmatic topic, but the one where you can “move the needle” or get something accomplished. Seize the opportunities that present themselves, and even in a losing cause on the voting tally, to set the stage for future fights.

17
posted on 09/26/2013 8:11:49 AM PDT
by kevkrom
(It's not "immigration reform", it's an "amnesty bill". Take back the language!)

There may be a simpler way to get the result. Pick the issue first and then the candidate who expresses it best. The corollary for hopeful candidates is if you express it well, it may be picked as the right issue, and you as the candidate to express it.

Number One, is the aim of conservatives to conserve the principles of the founders, and all that those principles encompassed at the time, and keep them into the future. ( The Constitution)

Number Two, is to support and elect representatives, and presidents, who concur with Number One.

Can these aims and principles even move the nation today, in significant numbers to actually prevail?

As the schools have triumphed over the Church, the churches have been been systematically diminished in their sustaining influence, and increasingly marginalized in the public square.

It is to be expected when you cede the field to incremental Marxist advances made in the schools, leaving now generations of children to come out “educated”, but entirely removed from the founding principles, having been shaped to reject serious church dogma, doctrines and community as well.

Panicked finally, we conservatives are beating against a tide turned against us that will take time to redirect, but must begin with taking back our schools, in order to reinvigorate and restore the Church. After all, where do children spend their lifetime? They are relegated to the school house, and school related activities that keep them out of their home and church.

22
posted on 09/26/2013 8:48:26 AM PDT
by RitaOK
( VIVA CHRISTO REY / Public education is the farm team for more Marxists coming.)

As for schools, I tried from the inside, serving on a school board, was targeted by the unions (3 or 4 of them) and bounced. I concluded schools were beyond repair without massive political changes. Home schooled my youngest son.

ObamaCare is wildly unpopular. Thus speaking out and voting against ObamaCare should help most Republican candidates. I can at least understand the problem when conservatives support a principle that is NOT wildly popular. But that is not the case here

Thus this exposes the real problem - establishment Republicans really believe in ObamaCare and is acting on its idealogy and “principles” and not political calculations.

Can these aims and principles even move the nation today, in significant numbers to actually prevail?

Good thoughts and hopefully the answer to your question can still be a "Yes". I think the failure, and unsustainability, of socialism in Europe and now America will ultimately be seen and understood by the public. And hopefully very soon.

And it is clear that the political strategy must be like that of Lady Margaret Thatcher and Sir Keith Joseph (and espoused in the 'WTF book' (www.tokyorove.com) ....

... instead of wheeling and dealing with consensus-building in Parliament and 10 Downing Street, the way to return Britain to economic and societal health from its sick man of Europe status was to take the collectivist consensus and wage against it:  a battle of ideas to be fought in every school, university, publication, committee, TV studio.

You are most correct that we need to take back our schoolhouses (private & homeschool in the interim) to win in the long run. Viva Christo Rey!

It is going to take time to unravel this mess and at least Cruz is willing to start. I’ll bet he has the Department of Education on his list when the time is right, which may not be until a few other problems are solved. I think he will do the right thing and to some extent, we have to trust his political judgment. He says he will listen. I hope he does. I’ll sure give him a chance.

Almost everyone who’s against Cruz backed Romney in the primary. I think we already had a good litmus test on who the real RINOs are. They’re the ones who backed Romney. And they’re reliably doing the wrong thing for the party and the conservative cause yet again. There is no mystery about who we can and can’t trust. Romney RINOs need to be weeded out of the party.

From the electoral standpoint, it means dont give me the guy with the 100% ACU rating unless he can win elections and get people to go along with his agenda. (At the same time, someone who can win elections but doesnt have conservative ideals is a bad candidate as well.)

Sounds like a good theory but how does it work in practice? Who did you back in the 2012 presidential primary? The people who follow a rule like yours seem to do nothing but pick losing candidates like Dole, McCain and Romney.

It is rather odd that many “conservative” voters keep putting liberals on local school boards. It’s about name ID. They won’t take the time to research the candidates. They just favor candidates who say they are “for the children.”

Sounds like a good theory but how does it work in practice? Who did you back in the 2012 presidential primary? The people who follow a rule like yours seem to do nothing but pick losing candidates like Dole, McCain and Romney.

I had a more detailed post on the subject once upon a time, but the 2012 field was... problematic, to say the least, in that none of the contenders had the "total package". The ideal candidate would be a solid conservative with executive experience, a track record for getting things accomplished, and have won at least a statewide election in the past.

The best fit, in my mind was Newt, as he was acceptably conservative (though he was not as reliable as I'd like) with a proven history of getting change pushed through. Speaker of the House was quite the same experience I'd normally look for as an executive, but it put him ahead of others with no executive experience at all. A drawback was the fact that he never won a statewide election. His iffier conservative cred meant he'd have been someone to watch and keep pressure on, but he would have been loads better than Romney or McCain.

38
posted on 09/27/2013 4:54:23 AM PDT
by kevkrom
(It's not "immigration reform", it's an "amnesty bill". Take back the language!)

I don’t know whether Rove is a neo-con, like Krauthammer, or merely a “party man,” but here is the problem with being a party man:

Winning by moving in the direction of your opponent assumes that your base has no alternative but to vote for your guy because he is after all the lesser of two evils.

This is wrong on three counts:

1. First, the Republicans need (small “l”) libertarians as well as conservatives to win; and, libertarians don’t view Republicans as less evil than Democrats. Libertarians view the traditional political spectrum as having bad social policy on one side and bad economic policy on the other. So, libertarians will either vote for the (capital “L”) Libertarian Party candidate or stay home.

2. Second, conservatives might view losing some elections as acceptable if this means when we win we have conservatives (and libertarians) in charge, rather than having RINOs when we win and Democrats when we lose. So, the party’s conservative will stay home.

3. Third, over time, the country will drift in the direction of the party that has an agenda, not for the party that merely opposes the agenda of the other party.

2012 is a prime example. Our people did not show up to vote (or, in Colorado and elsewhere in the Rocky Mountain west, voted for Gary Johnson).

Even 2004, Rove’s claim to fame, is illustrative (of point 3) as what happened two years later?

Rove was and is a political operative. How did he become an advisor to the President on domestic policy? Talk about a directionless party. At least the neo-cons at the Weekly Standard know what they want (the U.S. getting involves in wars all over the world).

George W. Bush and Condi Rice said that would be stupid back in 2000. Those guys have to fess up that they didn’t react to 9-11 as smartly as they should have. Our attempt to use the transforming power of democracy or whatever the heck the neo-cons want to characterize their foreign policy, didn’t work.

We were right to go into Afghanistan with special operations and B-52s and kick the Talliban and their not-so-secret Pakistan allies out of Kabul. But, the idea that we could then “reconstruct” a country that had never been “constructed” in the first place was ridiculous.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.